Psychologically, there is no basis to think a difference beyond the long refuted folk knowledge of "women are mentally fragile / men are resilient."

Physically, both have rectums, an opening that is not designed to have any "input", and we could be here forever going into the urological implications on how anal trauma can also affect the other genital-related functions for either sex.

But yes, women have vaginas.

You later on went on some sort of "womb real estate" theory of value which makes sense in the context of war - if for some reason we have to draft a sizable fraction of the population into deadly military service.

Is your argument for injury being 1000 times worse based on the idea of the difficulty of childbirth? If so you are not saying that the actual trauma experienced by the persons are the problem, but the fact that the women may be "broken" now, and therefore less useful to society. Whereas for a man the injuries and psychological are borderline irrelevant because you think the sperm still works just dandy.

So to answer your question in another comment, yes. This is sexist. But to give credit where do, it is a sexism that somehow manages to degrade all parties involved relatively equally. You degrade and invalidate the experiences of people based on little more than their sexual/reproductive utility if your "1000x worse" math is any fair metric to assess your values.